Yoma 29b (כט:) — the Talmud in English

Let us return it,

let us return the kemitzah to the vessel in which the meal-offering is placed,

and let us return and perform the kemitzah in the daytime,

and then perform the kemitzah from the meal-offering again during the day, in a valid manner!

And if so, why did the father of Rabbi Avin say in the name of the beraita that a meal-offering whose kemitzah was performed at night must be burned? [For an understanding of the depth of the question, see the note ].

And we answer:

He,

the father of Rabbi Avin,

taught it to them,

he taught us the words of the beraita.

And he

also

said to him,

he resolved it on his own initiative:

It must therefore be burned, because

service vessels sanctify

what is inside them

even

if one placed an item inside them

not at its proper time [

not at the time of its service].

Therefore, if one performed the kemitzah of the meal-offering at night and placed the handful in a service vessel, although night is not the time for performing the kemitzah, nevertheless the vessel sanctifies the handful inside it and gives it the designation “handful” [which must be burned on the altar].

Consequently, once the designation “handful” has taken effect upon this portion, the remainder of the meal-offering receives the designation “remainder” [which is eaten by the priests].

Accordingly, if one returns the handful to the remainder of the meal-offering, the mixture does not revert to receiving the designation “tevel” [a meal-offering from which the handful has not been separated is called “tevel”]; rather, it becomes a mixture of “handful” and “remainder,” mixed together. Therefore, it is impossible to perform the kemitzah from the mixture a second time. Therefore, the meal-offering must be burned.

The Gemara raises an objection:

The students of the yeshiva brought the following beraita as a contradiction to the words of the father of Rabbi Avin:

One who consecrates fine flour for a meal-offering does not sanctify the flour with the sanctity of the substance of an offering; it has only monetary sanctity. Only after he places the flour in a service vessel does the flour become sanctified with the sanctity of the substance of an offering and receive the status of an offering.

And we learned the following in a beraita concerning this matter:

This is the general rule: Everything

that

is offered during the day

alone [such as meal-offerings, frankincense, the blood of offerings, and the incense]—

is sanctified

with the sanctity of the substance of an offering if it was placed in a service vessel

during the day

alone. But if it was placed in it at night, it is not sanctified with the sanctity of the substance of an offering.

And everything that is offered at night—

is sanctified at night. [

The Maharav Ranshburg deleted this sentence; see the Meiri].

And everything that is offered both during the day and at night [

such as the libation meal-offering, which may be offered at night as well]—

is sanctified whether

it was placed in a service vessel

during the day, or whether

it was placed in it

at night.

In any event, it teaches

that in any event we learned in the beraita:

Everything that is offered during the day—

is sanctified during the day!

And this implies: Specifically

during the day, it is

indeed sanctified. But if it was placed in a service vessel

at night—

it

is not

sanctified! And this contradicts the words of the father of Rabbi Avin, who said that service vessels sanctify even when it is not the time for the offering!

And we answer:

Perhaps,

the words of the father of Rabbi Avin were stated only with regard to the disqualifications to which this offering may become subject from the moment it is sanctified in a service vessel. And this is the meaning of the beraita:

Everything that is offered during the day—

is not sanctified

at night

for offering.

If it was placed in a service vessel at night, it does not receive the complete sanctity of the substance of an offering, since it cannot be offered until it is placed in a service vessel during the day.

But

it

is sanctified

to a limited degree, with regard

to becoming disqualified

through disqualifications specific to the offering. [

For example, if a tevul yom or one lacking atonement touches it, it becomes disqualified through that contact. Likewise, if it leaves the Temple precincts, it becomes disqualified and is called yotzei. And if it remains overnight until dawn, it becomes disqualified because of linah].

This is specifically because it was sanctified in a service vessel. But as long as it was not placed in a service vessel, it is like non-sacred produce, which does not become disqualified through these matters.

Therefore, even the handful whose kemitzah was performed at night, although night is not the time for performing the kemitzah and it cannot be sanctified at night in a service vessel so as to be fit for offering, nevertheless receives the designation “handful” with regard to becoming disqualified through linah and similar matters.

Likewise, the remainder of the meal-offering received the designation “remainder,” and it is impossible to perform the kemitzah from there. The entire meal-offering must be burned.

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection

from the Mishna, which contains a contradiction to the words of the father of Rabbi Avin.

This is what we learned in the Mishna:

He arranged

on the Table in the Temple

the bread,

the showbread,

and the bowls,

of frankincense that accompany the bread,

after Shabbat,

and not on Shabbat, thereby violating what is stated [Leviticus 24:8] concerning the showbread: “On each and every Shabbat day he shall set it up before the Lord continually.”

And he burned the bowls

of frankincense

on Shabbat,

after they had been placed.

It follows that the bread and the bowls stood on the Table for fewer than seven days. [

The law of the showbread and the bowls is that they are to remain on the Table from one Shabbat until the following Shabbat, when the bowls are burned; through the burning of the bowls, the bread becomes permitted for consumption by the priests]. [

Invalid

is the burning of the bowls. Since the bowls are “lacking time,” as they did not remain on the Table for seven days, the bread is not permitted for consumption by the priests. Tosafot Yeshanim].

What should he do

with the showbread in order to permit it for consumption?

He should leave it

on the Table until

the following Shabbat,

after the burning. He should also place two new bowls of frankincense. It follows that the bread remained on the Table for more than seven days.

The bread does not thereby become disqualified, because

even

if

the arrangement remained

of bread and frankincense

on the Table for many days [

more than from one Shabbat to the next]

there is nothing wrong with that,

and the bread does not thereby become disqualified.

Afterwards, on the second Shabbat, he burns the bowls of frankincense and distributes the bread to the priests.

But according to the father of Rabbi Avin, who says that service vessels sanctify even when it is not yet the proper time, this is difficult:

And why?

How can they leave the bread until the following Shabbat and then eat it, and why does the bread not become disqualified as a result of being placed on the Table in the middle of the week?

For

the arrangement of bread should become sanctified

immediately when it is placed on the Table after Shabbat,

and become disqualified,

because when it was sanctified it was “lacking time”!

From here it follows that service vessels do not sanctify when it is not yet the proper time, which contradicts the words of the father of Rabbi Avin!

Rava said: The one who raises the objection,

Rabbi Zeira, who came to refute the words of the father of Rabbi Avin from the Mishna—

has raised a sound objection,

for he presented a good and forceful difficulty against the words of the father of Rabbi Avin;

but

nevertheless, it is impossible to reject the words of the father of Rabbi Avin and say that they are erroneous.

For

the father of Rabbi Avin too

did not state his own words; rather,

he stated a teaching,

for he presented his words in the name of a beraita. We must reconcile the Mishna and the beraita so that they do not contradict one another.

Therefore, we must say that service vessels do not sanctify when it is not yet the proper time, and nevertheless service vessels do sanctify at night, as follows:

And he assumed

that the tanna cited by the father of Rabbi Avin:

Night—

is not

called

“lacking time.”

Since night is part of the day that follows it, and both are considered the same day,

it is therefore considered as though he performed the kemitzah from the meal-offering on the day proper for it.

And it is sanctified with regard to becoming disqualified, although the offering is not valid at night.

But

day—

is “lacking time”!

Therefore, one who places the showbread on the Table during the day after Shabbat—since its proper time is not on that day—does not cause any sanctity to take effect upon it at all, even with regard to becoming disqualified.

And we ask: We have indeed resolved that the bread is not sanctified on the Table when it is placed there during the day after Shabbat, because it is “lacking time,” as its proper time is not on that day. But it is still difficult:

When twilight arrives,

when the twilight period preceding Shabbat arrives, the bread is fit to become sanctified on Shabbat. If so,

the arrangement of bread should become sanctified

that night, since night is not considered “lacking time.”

And become disqualified

the arrangement of bread because the bread was arranged at night, and when morning arrives the bread becomes disqualified through linah [Rashi].

He said

explained

Ravina:

It is referring to a beraita,

that was placed

on Friday evening before it grew dark,

and they removed

the bread from the Table; therefore, the bread did not become consecrated at that time, and they replaced it in the morning.

Mar Zutra, and some say [

or perhaps]

Rav Ashi said

another explanation:

Even you may say

even if you say that it refers to

a case where they did not place it beforehand and remove it

before Shabbat; nevertheless, the bread does not become consecrated on Shabbat night and thereby become disqualified.

Since they arranged it not in accordance with its mitzva,

with an insufficient interval [they arranged it on the Table on the other days of the week and not on Shabbat]—

the

bread lying on the Table on Shabbat night

became as though a monkey had arranged it,

without his knowledge.

Just as, if a monkey placed the bread on the Table without his knowledge, the bread would not become consecrated and thereby become disqualified, so too, when one arranges the bread on the other days of the week not in accordance with its mitzva, and Shabbat night arrives, the bread is considered as though it had been arranged by itself, and does not become consecrated at that time [and on the following day, on Shabbat, he must remove the bread from the Table and arrange it again].

We learned in the Mishna:

This was the rule in the Temple:

Anyone who defecates requires immersion, and anyone who urinates requires the sanctification of the hands and feet.

And we raised the following discussion:

Granted,

it is well understood that one who urinates requires the sanctification of

the feet, because

they are splashed by

droplets

of urine and must be washed.

But

the sanctification of the

hands—

what is the reason?

What is the reason that they must be washed?

Rabbi Abba said: This teaches,

one can learn from the words of the Mishna: